The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
8.4L 154 said:
The thing is the adults have already had the conversation a long time ago. There is a thing called Gillik competency which is used to decide if children are capable of making informed decisions about a whole range of medical needs. Furthermore trans kids are vigorously assessed over a long period of time before any medical intervention is authorised. (that's after the long wait to get a first appointment) As for their treatment, that has also been debated among the adult medical profession, rather than daily mail, twitter and PH experts and is generally a world wide consensus on treatment method (although the UK is behind in following the best practice)
Oh and one other legal point. Susie Green does poses the protected characteristic necessary for a trans hate crime. The test is the motive not the victim and the victim is also protected by association anyway.
Thank you for the thoughts. Whilst I'm not entirely sure that Gillick competency was envisaged to encompass this type of scenario, it is legitimate to bring it up. I'd disagree that society debated it, however; the Courts debated it, which is not at all the same thing. Furthermore, the original case (whether an under 16 year old girl should have access to contraception, which did get quite a lot of coverage at the time) had a very different resonance with the public than the current case.Oh and one other legal point. Susie Green does poses the protected characteristic necessary for a trans hate crime. The test is the motive not the victim and the victim is also protected by association anyway.
The point is moot as regards the surgery, of course, as above the age of 16 consent is assumed to be giveable unless proven otherwise; the surgery here occurred after the 16th birthday.
So that we're clear, I wasn't attempting to argue either side of the case, but instead point up where I thought that public opinion - and particularly any sense of public engagement in the discussion of rights and responsibilities and consent and so on - was perhaps out of step with the boots on the ground. Governments have a clear obligation to "carry the country" if they are not "following the country" yet ours are especially poor at that.
As regards the law, yes, I agree. However is it clear that the motive of the tweets was trans hate? I have to say I read those (now deleted) tweets as hate (if there was any) for the mother for her actions towards her child in her capacity as a mother and not in her capacity as an adjunct of a trans person - for the reasons above, including others. If somebody does something illegal (let us say) in support of a trans person, is it not still fair comment for others to say that they think it illegal? And if it is judged by a court not to be illegal then, assuming the accusation was not entirely baseless, an accusation is not of itself hateful, surely? I think a case on the facts of this particular case (re the tweets) would ultimately be decided by the skill of the respective advocates!
How Gillick competency came about is of no relevance now and claiming its just about contraception is disingenuous as its is the standard used by the NHS for all medical conditions not just contraception.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
NHS said:
Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment.
This is known as being Gillick competent.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/This is known as being Gillick competent.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
8.4L 154 said:
How Gillick competency came about is of no relevance now and claiming its just about contraception is disingenuous as its is the standard used by the NHS for all medical conditions not just contraception.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
I think it's perhaps more to do with the irreversibility, the mental state and the radicalness of the procedure at that age [what do we know at 16] that should give at least pause for thought. To say it's bigotry or discriminatory is to sweep this aside and concentrate on social attitudes rather than the condition and person involved. It's not wrong to discriminate necessarily, circumstances alter cases, and to imply it has something to do with 'bigotry' as if there is some anti-trans agenda behind it is far off the mark I'd say.NHS said:
Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment.
This is known as being Gillick competent.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/This is known as being Gillick competent.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, it's just that appropriate levels of attention should be paid to something as drastic as transitioning based on the thoughts of a 16yr old, I think that's reasonable.
8.4L 154 said:
How Gillick competency came about is of no relevance now and claiming its just about contraception is disingenuous as its is the standard used by the NHS for all medical conditions not just contraception.
With respect, I didn't claim it was just about contraception. I observed that I thought the public debate hadn't kept up with what was happening. Another poster suggested public debate had happened around Gillick competency. I merely suggested that Gillick (a) wasn't a public debate, and (b) that any public aware of what was happening might only remember the original circumstances surrounding that particular case.I happen to have my own misgivings about our legal system and the way in which new law is created by judges rather than a debate being forced to happen. But I apply that equally - it has nothing to do with the trans issue.
8.4L 154 said:
NHS said:
Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment.
This is known as being Gillick competent.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/This is known as being Gillick competent.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
For my part, I have no problem with those who identify as trans seeking treatment; what I object to is that the standards are not applied equally.
As an example close to my home, my wife is prohibited from even trying cannabis for medical purposes because of political considerations. There are plenty of randomised control trials showing benefits, but politically she - as an adult - is not allowed to make that choice. Instead my wife must take enormous quantities of opioids which do not actually work, create dependence, and so on.
Are there RCS around treatment (vs non-treatment) of children who present as trans?
The problem with this debate is that it immediately becomes charged. I'm not interested in the emotional side of it; I'm interested in the even application of public policy and the debate that goes along with this. Why should one condition be treated without the usual trials and tests whilst another condition should not be? Why may a child make a life-altering choice to elect to change their physical body pharmaceutically (the surgery was post-16) whilst adults are not allowed to make less-life-altering choices?
There are also major inequities around the treatment of emotional and psychological issues (I don't know what non-charged term to use here to encompass a wider range of issues that are not physical ailments). Whilst it seems that the Tavistock, for instance, is sufficiently funded to meet the needs of those children who identify as trans, mental health services across the country are overwhelmed and under-funded, diagnostic ability is patchy at best, and best practice treatments are simply not available to a great many in the UK.
Why is mental health relevant? Because the frequent claim amongst those campaigning for better and increased resources for those who identify as trans is that without help those people are at greater risk of suicide; set against that, the actual suicide problems of those with unmet mental health care needs are being roundly ignored.
So, not, I'm not singling out trans children; I'm pointing up the discrepancies that exist in our system, and observing the lack of any real public debate around the majority of these issues.
It should be IMHO a matter of public debate how resources are allocated fairly, how different groups' needs and desires are balanced. It is grossly inequitable for pressure groups to obtain advantages for their constituencies not available to others. It is a legitimate item of public debate, and the occasional attempts to shut down such debate on the grounds that anything that might benefit other groups at the expense of, say, trans groups is inherently transphobic is distasteful and counter-productive.
For reasons I'm not going to go into here, I've spent a considerable part of my life fighting inequality around mental health provision in relation to people other than me. I've dealt with a fair degree of stigma, misunderstanding, and outright hostility towards that cause. I've heard enough of the words "choice" and "self-inflicted" and "not life-threatening" and even the more hurtful "loony" and "whacko" and so on applied to those in need. I'm not for one moment suggesting that trans people and those children who identify as trans are not entitled to respect and assistance; what I am saying is that the debate will not be helped, society will not develop, unless we can have proper reasoned debates about some of the higher-level issues rather than the situation we currently find ourselves in.
The people often hold society back. But society must carry the people. The modern doctrine of shutting-down those we haven't carried yet with cries of "hate crime" and so on just serves to further alienate many of the public, those very people we need behind progressive change.
andy_s said:
8.4L 154 said:
How Gillick competency came about is of no relevance now and claiming its just about contraception is disingenuous as its is the standard used by the NHS for all medical conditions not just contraception.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
I think it's perhaps more to do with the irreversibility, the mental state and the radicalness of the procedure at that age [what do we know at 16] that should give at least pause for thought. To say it's bigotry or discriminatory is to sweep this aside and concentrate on social attitudes rather than the condition and person involved. It's not wrong to discriminate necessarily, circumstances alter cases, and to imply it has something to do with 'bigotry' as if there is some anti-trans agenda behind it is far off the mark I'd say.NHS said:
Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment.
This is known as being Gillick competent.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/This is known as being Gillick competent.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, it's just that appropriate levels of attention should be paid to something as drastic as transitioning based on the thoughts of a 16yr old, I think that's reasonable.
There seems to be an idea in this page that trans healthcare is subject not of medical professionals, scientific research and global expert consensus, but one of a social debate and will of the majority. Sorry no, that IS pandering to bigotry and the ill informed.
8.4L 154 said:
How Gillick competency came about is of no relevance now and claiming its just about contraception is disingenuous as its is the standard used by the NHS for all medical conditions not just contraception.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
Singling out the only condition that could result in irreversible physical alteration to the reproductive system/physical genitals? Yes, I'm quite happy with an additional level of protection for kids on this point. Its not the same as having breast reduction/implants or having contraception provided is it?NHS said:
Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment.
This is known as being Gillick competent.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/This is known as being Gillick competent.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
skwdenyer said:
Like or not, the decision about what conditions are recognised, and what treatments are allowed, is very much a political issue, despite attempts to characterise it as some sort of medical science.
For my part, I have no problem with those who identify as trans seeking treatment; what I object to is that the standards are not applied equally.
As an example close to my home, my wife is prohibited from even trying cannabis for medical purposes because of political considerations. There are plenty of randomised control trials showing benefits, but politically she - as an adult - is not allowed to make that choice. Instead my wife must take enormous quantities of opioids which do not actually work, create dependence, and so on.
Are there RCS around treatment (vs non-treatment) of children who present as trans?
The problem with this debate is that it immediately becomes charged. I'm not interested in the emotional side of it; I'm interested in the even application of public policy and the debate that goes along with this. Why should one condition be treated without the usual trials and tests whilst another condition should not be? Why may a child make a life-altering choice to elect to change their physical body pharmaceutically (the surgery was post-16) whilst adults are not allowed to make less-life-altering choices?
There are also major inequities around the treatment of emotional and psychological issues (I don't know what non-charged term to use here to encompass a wider range of issues that are not physical ailments). Whilst it seems that the Tavistock, for instance, is sufficiently funded to meet the needs of those children who identify as trans, mental health services across the country are overwhelmed and under-funded, diagnostic ability is patchy at best, and best practice treatments are simply not available to a great many in the UK.
Why is mental health relevant? Because the frequent claim amongst those campaigning for better and increased resources for those who identify as trans is that without help those people are at greater risk of suicide; set against that, the actual suicide problems of those with unmet mental health care needs are being roundly ignored.
So, not, I'm not singling out trans children; I'm pointing up the discrepancies that exist in our system, and observing the lack of any real public debate around the majority of these issues.
It should be IMHO a matter of public debate how resources are allocated fairly, how different groups' needs and desires are balanced. It is grossly inequitable for pressure groups to obtain advantages for their constituencies not available to others. It is a legitimate item of public debate, and the occasional attempts to shut down such debate on the grounds that anything that might benefit other groups at the expense of, say, trans groups is inherently transphobic is distasteful and counter-productive.
For reasons I'm not going to go into here, I've spent a considerable part of my life fighting inequality around mental health provision in relation to people other than me. I've dealt with a fair degree of stigma, misunderstanding, and outright hostility towards that cause. I've heard enough of the words "choice" and "self-inflicted" and "not life-threatening" and even the more hurtful "loony" and "whacko" and so on applied to those in need. I'm not for one moment suggesting that trans people and those children who identify as trans are not entitled to respect and assistance; what I am saying is that the debate will not be helped, society will not develop, unless we can have proper reasoned debates about some of the higher-level issues rather than the situation we currently find ourselves in.
The people often hold society back. But society must carry the people. The modern doctrine of shutting-down those we haven't carried yet with cries of "hate crime" and so on just serves to further alienate many of the public, those very people we need behind progressive change.
If you think that trans healthcare is well funded and supported then you are seriously misinformed. Wait list are in years. The 18 week right to treatment mandate of the NHS is ignored with zero consequence. For my part, I have no problem with those who identify as trans seeking treatment; what I object to is that the standards are not applied equally.
As an example close to my home, my wife is prohibited from even trying cannabis for medical purposes because of political considerations. There are plenty of randomised control trials showing benefits, but politically she - as an adult - is not allowed to make that choice. Instead my wife must take enormous quantities of opioids which do not actually work, create dependence, and so on.
Are there RCS around treatment (vs non-treatment) of children who present as trans?
The problem with this debate is that it immediately becomes charged. I'm not interested in the emotional side of it; I'm interested in the even application of public policy and the debate that goes along with this. Why should one condition be treated without the usual trials and tests whilst another condition should not be? Why may a child make a life-altering choice to elect to change their physical body pharmaceutically (the surgery was post-16) whilst adults are not allowed to make less-life-altering choices?
There are also major inequities around the treatment of emotional and psychological issues (I don't know what non-charged term to use here to encompass a wider range of issues that are not physical ailments). Whilst it seems that the Tavistock, for instance, is sufficiently funded to meet the needs of those children who identify as trans, mental health services across the country are overwhelmed and under-funded, diagnostic ability is patchy at best, and best practice treatments are simply not available to a great many in the UK.
Why is mental health relevant? Because the frequent claim amongst those campaigning for better and increased resources for those who identify as trans is that without help those people are at greater risk of suicide; set against that, the actual suicide problems of those with unmet mental health care needs are being roundly ignored.
So, not, I'm not singling out trans children; I'm pointing up the discrepancies that exist in our system, and observing the lack of any real public debate around the majority of these issues.
It should be IMHO a matter of public debate how resources are allocated fairly, how different groups' needs and desires are balanced. It is grossly inequitable for pressure groups to obtain advantages for their constituencies not available to others. It is a legitimate item of public debate, and the occasional attempts to shut down such debate on the grounds that anything that might benefit other groups at the expense of, say, trans groups is inherently transphobic is distasteful and counter-productive.
For reasons I'm not going to go into here, I've spent a considerable part of my life fighting inequality around mental health provision in relation to people other than me. I've dealt with a fair degree of stigma, misunderstanding, and outright hostility towards that cause. I've heard enough of the words "choice" and "self-inflicted" and "not life-threatening" and even the more hurtful "loony" and "whacko" and so on applied to those in need. I'm not for one moment suggesting that trans people and those children who identify as trans are not entitled to respect and assistance; what I am saying is that the debate will not be helped, society will not develop, unless we can have proper reasoned debates about some of the higher-level issues rather than the situation we currently find ourselves in.
The people often hold society back. But society must carry the people. The modern doctrine of shutting-down those we haven't carried yet with cries of "hate crime" and so on just serves to further alienate many of the public, those very people we need behind progressive change.
Personally i'd fully support the availability of medical cannabis if the research shows its beneficial and agree its restriction is political. But I wouldn't use that as an argument to restrict the healthcare of another section of society who face their own substantial inequalities in a kind of, I cant get what I want so no once else can have anything either argument.
George Smiley said:
8.4L 154 said:
How Gillick competency came about is of no relevance now and claiming its just about contraception is disingenuous as its is the standard used by the NHS for all medical conditions not just contraception.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
Singling out the only condition that could result in irreversible physical alteration to the reproductive system/physical genitals? Yes, I'm quite happy with an additional level of protection for kids on this point. Its not the same as having breast reduction/implants or having contraception provided is it?NHS said:
Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment.
This is known as being Gillick competent.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/children/This is known as being Gillick competent.
Singling out trans children and removing their rights that are provided for every other medical procedure is discrimination at best and pure bigotry at worst.
8.4L 154 said:
Why is trans healthcare held to a higher standard? There are many healthcare decisions which are irreversible or carry profound implications and we use Gillick competency to test if the child is competent to participate in their healthcare decisions . Trans healthcare and in particular adolescent trans healthcare is the most scrutinised and heavenly restricted of them all. It is EXTREMELY hard to obtain medical transition treatment as a trans child.
There seems to be an idea in this page that trans healthcare is subject not of medical professionals, scientific research and global expert consensus, but one of a social debate and will of the majority. Sorry no, that IS pandering to bigotry and the ill informed.
That wasn't at all what I said, that it should be left to a social majority voice - see how that pans out... - and I fully understand why that would be fraught. If it is a procedure that is 'EXTREMELY' hard then that, to me, implies there are lots of checks and balances and rightfully so in my estimation, this isn't bigotry but commensurate with the scale, to my mind.There seems to be an idea in this page that trans healthcare is subject not of medical professionals, scientific research and global expert consensus, but one of a social debate and will of the majority. Sorry no, that IS pandering to bigotry and the ill informed.
Slightly aside from this, is the Gillick competency used in any other self-driven procedure or is it otherwise used as affirmation/confirmation of pre-existing medical advice (ie 'consent to' rather than 'I want' - I know this is a clumsy way of putting it but hopefully you see what I'm driving at).
<><><>
Anyway, please ignore, skwdenyer has put the issue far better and with more knowledge than I; who remains a spectator...
skwdenyer said:
For reasons I'm not going to go into here, I've spent a considerable part of my life fighting inequality around mental health provision in relation to people other than me. I've dealt with a fair degree of stigma, misunderstanding, and outright hostility towards that cause. I've heard enough of the words "choice" and "self-inflicted" and "not life-threatening" and even the more hurtful "loony" and "whacko" and so on applied to those in need. I'm not for one moment suggesting that trans people and those children who identify as trans are not entitled to respect and assistance; what I am saying is that the debate will not be helped, society will not develop, unless we can have proper reasoned debates about some of the higher-level issues rather than the situation we currently find ourselves in.
I don't disagree with you. However, I do think that the reasoned debate needs to be amongst those involved (both those affected, and those who can help) rather than Daily Mail style "debate". For example, the medical benefits of marijuana need to be determined by scientific trials (I understand that preliminary results are very positive) and political will (again, this seems to be softening). The opinion of those who don't have a medical complaint that can be treated by marijuana, don't know anyone who does, and have never taken the drug themselves, but are arguing purely from a position of uninformed opinion and "morality", I have somewhat less time for. Especially when their argument is "drugs are bad, and always have been bad, and I see no reason why this should change".
(Also, I'm sorry to hear that)
George Smiley said:
Do you seriously think that 18 weeks is an acceptable target to go from start to transition? No, of course not, there are many elective procedures that need to take longer, stop being a bloody cry baby. Sometimes, things take longer because they need to take longer.
18 weeks is not the time to transition. 18 weeks is the NHS commitment to provide access to treatment (referral and first meeting with a specialist) with maximum waiting times under its constitution.The shortest waiting time for trans first appointment is about 18 months currently, some clinics are over 4 years.
nhs said:
Referral to treatment
In England, under the NHS Constitution, patients ‘have the right to access certain services commissioned by NHS bodies within maximum waiting times, or for the NHS to take all reasonable steps to offer a range of suitable alternative providers if this is not possible’. The NHS Constitution sets out that patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from GP referral to treatment.
In England, under the NHS Constitution, patients ‘have the right to access certain services commissioned by NHS bodies within maximum waiting times, or for the NHS to take all reasonable steps to offer a range of suitable alternative providers if this is not possible’. The NHS Constitution sets out that patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from GP referral to treatment.
8.4L 154 said:
George Smiley said:
Do you seriously think that 18 weeks is an acceptable target to go from start to transition? No, of course not, there are many elective procedures that need to take longer, stop being a bloody cry baby. Sometimes, things take longer because they need to take longer.
18 weeks is not the time to transition. 18 weeks is the NHS commitment to provide access to treatment (referral and first meeting with a specialist) with maximum waiting times under its constitution.The shortest waiting time for trans first appointment is about 18 months currently, some clinics are over 4 years.
nhs said:
Referral to treatment
In England, under the NHS Constitution, patients ‘have the right to access certain services commissioned by NHS bodies within maximum waiting times, or for the NHS to take all reasonable steps to offer a range of suitable alternative providers if this is not possible’. The NHS Constitution sets out that patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from GP referral to treatment.
In England, under the NHS Constitution, patients ‘have the right to access certain services commissioned by NHS bodies within maximum waiting times, or for the NHS to take all reasonable steps to offer a range of suitable alternative providers if this is not possible’. The NHS Constitution sets out that patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from GP referral to treatment.
_dobbo_ said:
George Smiley said:
Should the NHS, which is under resourced, should be taking a prioritised approach to the care it provides?
Keep moving them goalposts George, it makes it look like you're winning, honestly it does.George Smiley said:
Do one dobbo, no goalpoasts or anything being moved - the NHS needs to focus resources on where they are most needed
Absolutely. However, that seems a rather tenuous argument here. George Smiley said:
sorry if that doesn't appeal to your agenda.
Fortunately, the statement does appeal to yours. 
George Smiley said:
Do one dobbo, no goalpoasts or anything being moved - the NHS needs to focus resources on where they are most needed, sorry if that doesn't appeal to your agenda.
Oh really?you said
George Smiley said:
Do you seriously think that 18 weeks is an acceptable target to go from start to transition? No, of course not, there are many elective procedures that need to take longer, stop being a bloody cry baby. Sometimes, things take longer because they need to take longer.
When your (completely unsurprising) ignorance of how the NHS works was corrected, you changed this to George Smiley said:
Should the NHS, which is under resourced, should be taking a prioritised approach to the care it provides?
Which is of course completely correct, but if that isn't moving the goalposts then I don't know what is.8.4L 154 said:
If you think that trans healthcare is well funded and supported then you are seriously misinformed. Wait list are in years. The 18 week right to treatment mandate of the NHS is ignored with zero consequence.
The Tavistock's waiting list seems to be about 1 year at the moment. Adults seem to wait 1-2 years right now.This compares with mental health where waiting times for actual treatment are not routinely kept, but stretch at least as long as this if not longer. People at immediate risk of self-harm included.
There is some evidence to suggest that mental health waiting times are moderated by suicide and incarceration.
8.4L 154 said:
Personally i'd fully support the availability of medical cannabis if the research shows its beneficial and agree its restriction is political. But I wouldn't use that as an argument to restrict the healthcare of another section of society who face their own substantial inequalities in a kind of, I cant get what I want so no once else can have anything either argument.
It is possible I'm not explaining myself; it also possible that you are continually mischaracterising my points (is that a hate crime?) 
I have never said that "because I can't have X, you can't have Y", nor have I implied it or supported it. I've consistently attempted to maintain a balanced view to this otherwise very hot debate.
What I have said is that I think there is a matter of public policy and public debate that is not being properly handled.
From the point of view of a substantial majority of the population, people are born to their gender. As a wise person once said, the most important part of growing up is understanding that the person you see in the mirror is the person you have to live with for the rest of your life. Many - most? - of the population see that as "the way things are." Most people don't get to ask the NHS to do very much about their appearance if they don't like it.
That doesn't mean that gender dysphoria is not a real syndrome. But it does mean that going from a position where most poeple view it as "other" to a position where to suggest it is "other" is a hate crime in just a very short number of years is a huge leap, and inevitably a large proportion of the population will be left behind by that shift.
Public perceptions of mental health, homosexuality, and various other issues have had to travel a similar path. I'm not sure that such shifts have ever happened so quickly.
If I were to accuse somebody with ME of being lazy or a Fibro sufferer of just complaining too much of everyday aches and pains (in effect denying their condition, a very common occurrence), are you seriously trying to suggest that I would be subject to the sort of vitriol that would accompany an accusation of a trans person still being their birth gender? Society has not been taken on this journey; government has not legislated equally; authority has not acted equally.
Failure to carry the population is a political problem. What people can do to themselves, or their children, is a matter of public policy, but also a political issue. How the NHS is operated is also both a matter of public policy and a political issue. We cannot separate those drivers.
That is what a proper debate should entail; not mob rule, but a consistent and coherent approach to dealing with a range of issues so that those with the relevant conditions are treated equally. That does not happen right now, and many people are upset that there is such apparent inconsistency and perhaps favouring of one minority over other groups.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff